Post/Author/DateTime	Post
polt 04-22-07, 05:08 PM	Hey guys, I hope I could get some quick opinions about this, since I have no idea how it'll work. I really wanted to change the wizard a little bit, without it being too drastic, and give him some more versatility in his use of spells. I don't play with sorcerers, I only really want one clean arcane spellcasting class. But that's not important, anyway. What I've come up with is this: When a wizard gets 2nd lvl spells, he can cast half of his 0th lvl spells spontaneously. When he gets 3rd lvl sells, he can cast half of his 1st level spells spontaneously and so on. I've always played with the houserules that a wizard takes two turns casting a spell. But when he gains 3rd lvl spells he takes only one turn casting 0th lvl spells, and when he reaches 4th lvl spells he casts 1st lvl spells in one turn, and so on. And the wizard does not gain two free spells when he levels up, he gains spells by finding spellbooks and scrolls and stuff like that. And other wizards can teach him spells. So all that put together, what do you guys think? I'm not sure how it'll work, but I'd really appreciate some advice/opinions and so on. Thanks.
Arcade 04-22-07, 08:42 PM	Casting low levels spells such as that spontaneously seems like a good idea, though I might increase the level by one more than this (spontaneous cantrips when third levels are gained). First level spells still get used around 5th level and second level spells are still useful at 7th level, so you don't want to give them that much power too easily. After that, the usefulness decreases and making them spontaneous gives a lot of use for those spell slots still. Of course, given your other restrictions, perhaps the level is good the way it is. I wonder if "half of the spells at that level" is a good number to use. I would prefer something based on intelligence score or caster level instead. Maybe the int bonus tells you how many spontaneous spells you get for each spell level, plus one for each bonus spell you get of that level. And for fun, throw a feat in there like spell mastery to add spontaneous spells as well. As for the casting time, that sounds pretty painful. Two rounds to cast a spell means everyone sees a wizard start casting a spell on round one and all the archers fire on him before he finishes on round two while everyone in move distance tries to take a melee attack if they can.
Jonathan Drain 04-23-07, 04:10 PM	Not really a fan of the two-round thing here. It halves the effectiveness of a wizard in any given combat, and makes combat spells half as valuable as long-term buffs. Your spontaneous casting idea is nice except for two problems: - A wizard's repetoire of lower-level spells will be limited only by his spellbook, unlike a sorcerer who has only a strictly limited selection at most - Sorcerers, if they're used, would need something to compensate
polt 04-23-07, 04:11 PM	Well, as a DM I will be in total control of what's in the wizards spell book.
Evil DM Mk3 04-23-07, 04:31 PM	Removing the automatic 2 spells per level is a BIG mistake, it really punishes wizards who adventure, especially if they do not get back to teh city (to buy scroosl to scribe over) for a few levels.
polt 04-23-07, 04:37 PM	Removing the automatic 2 spells per level is a BIG mistake, it really punishes wizards who adventure, especially if they do not get back to teh city (to buy scroosl to scribe over) for a few levels. Well, I play in a kind of low magic setting, so there's not a lot of magic in the cities anyways. But anywho, as the GM, you can control if the wizard stumbles upon scrolls from olden times in dungeons and other sites :)
Evil DM Mk3 04-23-07, 05:40 PM	Low magic...high fantasy game...ye, um, really bad experiancves here, are you familar with iron heros?
Ashanti 04-23-07, 06:03 PM	I dunno, I'v played low magic all my life; we often use worlds from novels (the Riftwar is an excellent place to play) and it seems to work if the DM is (as Plot says) in control of the wizards spell aquisition (I always dole out the spells and my players have never researched a spell, ever). I agree with polts' view on low magic cities (a pox on magic marts). That said the 2 round casting is non non heinous. If you want to be versatile have him/her make scrolls and potions (in my games these are the only magic item craft feat available), these are excellent bang for your money. Penning scrolls and brewing potions fulfulls most of your wizards needs. Not having 2 spells on a new spell level is harsh, but we managed for years in 2nd ed. What you could do is say that you choose as many spells as your int bonus to be able to cast spontaneously a la cleric. This lets the wizard player develope an area in which he/she is really expert in.
Vva70 04-23-07, 07:31 PM	Okay, I have to say that, under these rules, I would not want to play a wizard. First of all, unless you remove the cost for scribing new spells into the wizard's spellbook, the lack of the 2 free spells per level could turn very prohibitive in the early levels. Remember, for everything beyond the two free ones per level, it costs 100 gp per page in materials to add the spell. That's a fair bit of money early on. Second, your system places complete control over a wizard's known spells into the hands of the DM. It seems that this is a known and intended part of your system. Well, while this is not necessarily a terrible effect (as it really depends on the specific DM), it is one that I would refuse. To me, this would be like playing a fighter and having the DM tell me what to take for three-fourths of my bonus feats. Some players may find this system acceptable, and I would not mind playing under such a system (with a good DM), but I would not play a wizard under such a system. Finally, I don't really know what I think about the two-round casting rule. It seems pretty drastic to me, but I can see where some caster power reduction might be necessary in a low-magic game. I just think that two-round casting, and the number of chances to get interrupted that it opens up (as well as the reduction in power from your other rulings), would be too limiting. Edit: Oops, forgot to add "per page" in reference to spell adding cost.
Ace_of_time 04-23-07, 08:44 PM	I only play wizard for the bonus feats but why not just make it a feat in your world so the players can have some say in it or a special school that only a small number of wizards are taken to would work too.
Armendil 04-24-07, 06:17 PM	Here's a whacky idea for a whole new wizard system (let's say this replaces wizards and sorcerors.) The "wizard" casts all spells he knows spontaneously and can cast a number of spells per day using the normal wizard spell progression table. As the wizard grows in power, he not only learns more powerful spells, but easier (lower level) spells become esier to cast. It takes a wizard two full rounds to cast spells of the highest level he can cast (unless the time is normally longer, in which case it is left unchanged). This makes a wizard's highest level of spells much less useful in combat. Lower level spells can be cast as follows: 1 level below max: full-round action 2 below: standard action 3 below: standard action and Silent 4 to 5 below: standard action and Silent and Still 6 to 9 below: Quickened and Silent and Still Silent, Still and Quicken would be unavailable as metamagic feats. All other feats work normally, can be applied spontaneously and increase the difficulty of casting the modified spell as if it was a spell of the newly modified level.
Neutronium_Dragon 04-24-07, 06:29 PM	"Mr. Fighter, if you want to use any of your good feats, it takes you two rounds to do so." I wouldn't accept that any more than I would accept being saddled with a wizard under a system like that. Yes, saddled with - under that approach having a wizard in the party is a detriment given that a *useful* character could have been brought along instead.
Ics 04-24-07, 08:09 PM	Since you don't use sorcerers, I'd use the following: Wizards gain 2 new spells/level, plus what they scribe into their spellbooks (like the normal system). Unused spell slots 3 levels lower than the highest level that the wizard can cast can be used to cast spontaneously; however, this requires a full-round action. Prepared spells can be converted to spontaneous spell slots as a full-round action. No more than half of the available spell slots of any given spell level can be used to cast spells spontaneously. Like Vva70 and others have said, having control over a wizard's spell selection is no good; no experienced player will choose wizard over a CoDzilla (of course, they still might do this anyway :P ). Also: two rounds to cast a spell? Even if you're reducing the power of magic-users for a low-magic setting, try and remember that it should still be fun to play this class; two rounds is too long.
polt 04-25-07, 02:49 AM	We've played with the two round system, and the total DM control of spells for five years. Two rounds aren't too long. And removing the two spells pr. level isn't a bad thing. The DM will still let you find spells and all that. The only reason you wouldn't want that rule, is if you plan on getting some spells that'll screw it up for the DM. Because that's the spells he would want to keep away from you.
Ashanti 04-25-07, 03:48 AM	We've played with the two round system, and the total DM control of spells for five years. Two rounds aren't too long. And removing the two spells pr. level isn't a bad thing. The DM will still let you find spells and all that. The only reason you wouldn't want that rule, is if you plan on getting some spells that'll screw it up for the DM. Because that's the spells he would want to keep away from you. I do agree with the DM having control over the spells a wizard has but it is more a question of habit in our games. The two automatic spells ar a new spell level never caught on in our games. We also get around the problem of plot confounding spells by removing them from the campaign so not raised dead or teleport. Like Vva70 and others have said, having control over a wizard's spell selection is no good; no experienced player will choose wizard over a CoDzilla (of course, they still might do this anyway ). We get around this by nixing CoDzilla till it is more balanced with the other classess. It always seemed odd to go on about how great they are when a few simple fixes put them back on a par with other classes.
Vva70 04-25-07, 12:07 PM	We've played with the two round system, and the total DM control of spells for five years. Two rounds aren't too long. And removing the two spells pr. level isn't a bad thing. The DM will still let you find spells and all that. The only reason you wouldn't want that rule, is if you plan on getting some spells that'll screw it up for the DM. Because that's the spells he would want to keep away from you. Well, as far as keeping "campaign busters" under control, I have to wonder why it wouldn't be a better option to just go through the spell list before the campaign and make a list of illegal spells. There's a big difference between "I don't want to have to worry about teleport for this campaign, so don't pick it" and "You don't choose your spells, I do." Knowing ahead of time that certain spells are not allowed would not be a problem for me. Not being able to choose my own spells from the "acceptable" list would be a problem.
Sorentia 04-27-07, 09:03 AM	If there is 2 way communication between the DM and the wizard then things should be find. However the DM has to be willing to listen to the PC and place some spells that the PC wishes to find. I myself in a campaign I played during 2nd Edition had a DM that did this for my wizard and things worked smashingly. I got spells I wanted, the DM gave me spells he thought would help me learn how to be a better wizard, and game breaking spells were kept out of my hands. However, in another campaign, it was a travisty. The DM refused to allow my poor wizard a single offensive spell. He expected me to work with spells such as Tensor's Floating Disk and others of its ilk but no means of contributing to the party's offensive or deffensive power. More or less, a non-combatant that the party turned to to help them haul gear out or to teleport them around. If it's handled right, having a DM with the final say on spells is just fine. However, I have to agree that the 2 round casting is a bit excessive. You've already garentee'd that the wizard will probly have lower damage output than under the normal rules (if your smart anyways and keep certin attack spells out of thier hands while giving them others in exchange) and you can control in what situations said magic is even useful as an offensive spell. Also spells like Charm Person become pretty pointless in the low levels if you can't cast them as normal. By the time you cast it the target is probly dead.
polt 04-27-07, 09:18 AM	What our DM generally do is let us find a spell book, and when we ask "what spells are in there?" he goes "What spells do you want there to be?" And we work something out.
Luis_Dragunov 04-27-07, 04:58 PM	Why not give them Spell Points, à lá Unearthed Arcana, and maybe adjust spell damage progression with the Psionic version of the Power Points?
Sorentia 04-28-07, 09:26 AM	Why not give them Spell Points, à lá Unearthed Arcana, and maybe adjust spell damage progression with the Psionic version of the Power Points? Unearthed Arcana already has stipulations on damage dice progression requiring you to spend extra spell points to boost the damage of the spell beyond it's minimum level power. i.e. a fireball does 5d6 damage always unless you spend more spell points.
Drachasor 04-28-07, 03:57 PM	I don't think full spontaneous casting is appropriate for wizards. They have an ever-growing spell-list, and that can start eating up a lot of time as people play. Instead, let them spontaneously cast from the spells they have already prepared. So a Wizard might have 4 first level spells per day, and so he prepares 4 different spells. He can then cast any of those 4 spells, but is still limited to a total of 4 first level spells. That way the player has to think about what spells he wants to use. Beyond that, let them spend an hour to change their readied spells (in spontaneous slots) to different spells. As for multiple rounds to cast spells, that's not appropriate at low levels. A 1st level wizard is already hosed, and so is a 5th level one, pretty much. Making them more hosed isn't a good idea, generally speaking. Let them never have any problems casting 1st level spells. Then, for the top half of their spell levels (rounded up), make them be required to "power" those levels. A level is assumed to be powered, but when you cast a spell of that level, then it is depowered. Require a full-round action (that provokes an AOO) to repower ONE spell level. So a 9th level caster, for example, has to power his 4th and 5th level spells. If he casts Cloudkill in the first round of battle, then he has depowered his 5th level spells. He has to spend a full-round action to repower his 5th level spells. So at best he can cast a 5th level spell every other round. This requires him to use more low level spells, and not throw out a whole bunch of high powered magic in the first few rounds. (Not that 6th-9th level spells will always need to be powered, since having access to 9th level spells means you only don't need to power 1st-5th level magic). (in the game I am playing, we more or less combined the above with a spell point system. There we allowed you to repower a high level spell slot by casting a lower level spell + spending extra spell points equal to the amount needed to cast a higher level spell. Using the UA spell point variant, that would mean you could repower a 5th level spell by casting a 3rd level spell (5 spell points) while spending 9 more spell points to repower it. This would eat through your magic very quickly though)*. If you use spell points, I'd give casters extra spell points at low levels (where they need them). -Drachasor *We use a different spell point system though, where an X level spell costs X spell points to cast. You have a lot fewer spell points than in the UA system, obviously. We also gave wizards 3/4 BAB progression, 4 skill points/level, and a d6 hit die. Though they also only started with access to two schools of magic (and all cantrips from all schools). A feat could be spent to grant access to another school of magic. At 4th level and every 4 levels thereafter, you got a "bonus arcana" which could be used to get access to another school or to reduced the cost of casting spells from one school by 1 level (1 spell point for us, 2 spell points for a UA system, though always at least 1 spell point must be spent). You couldn't double-specialize. Everyone got a bonus feat at 1st level (beyond the norm), and you could take flaws as well.
Drachasor 04-28-07, 04:07 PM	Unearthed Arcana already has stipulations on damage dice progression requiring you to spend extra spell points to boost the damage of the spell beyond it's minimum level power. i.e. a fireball does 5d6 damage always unless you spend more spell points. It is a stupid system for wizards/clerics though. It just makes casting save-or-dies a lot smarter. The game doesn't need to nerf direct damage anymore than it already has. As written, it just REALLY encourages save-or-lose spells. In fact, it makes casting any other sort of spell pretty stupid. I mean, seriously, why would anyone EVER cast magic missile? At 9th level, it would take 9 spell points (as much as a 5th level spell!!) to do 5d4+5 damage to one target. What kind of insanity is that? Especially as you gain levels, it is better to just cast a save-or-die or other such spell than to use a direct damage spell. Admittedly, a fireball at 9th level can make sense, but you are still paying as much as a 5th level spell for no more damage AND a lower saving throw. It works for Psionics because the save DCs and the entire system in general is balanced around the adjustable cost idea. The PHB magic system isn't, and so it effectively is just a nerf on direct damage spells. Sadly, those are the spells you want to encourage players to cast, not discourage. Getting more save-or-die (or save-or-lose) spells makes for a less dramatic and interesting combat. -Drachasor
polt 04-28-07, 04:50 PM	I don't think full spontaneous casting is appropriate for wizards. They have an ever-growing spell-list, and that can start eating up a lot of time as people play. A yes, but like I said earlier, we don't give away any free spells. The spells a wizard gets is totally in the hands of the DM.
Drachasor 04-28-07, 05:25 PM	A yes, but like I said earlier, we don't give away any free spells. The spells a wizard gets is totally in the hands of the DM. It isn't a matter of the player picking spells, though honestly, if magic is at all common then you should be able to pay someone to get a spell copied into your book. Rather, it is more a matter of the player having every spell in his book accessible. This means that they can spend too much time trying to find the perfect spell for a situation out of all of their options. -Drachasor